TargetOfOpportunity.com

Hate Mail - 2009

TargetOfOpportunity.com Disclaimer:
We reserve the right to print any email that we receive.
We make no corrections for grammar or spelling.

Our Commentary is in Red.

Updated 29 December 2009

29 December 2009

Austin Sullivan wrote:

I'd like to start off this email by saying that I am happy to see your openness to contact, both positive and negative. To many groups are willing to put their opinion out there but refuse to listen to people who disagree with their views. To see a group that is so willing to take criticism, and even publish it on their website, is a welcome change, even if it is all stuck into the "hate mail" category. Hopefully you will see that this email fits none of your requirements to be considered hatemail, and therefore will actually read it.

Just so you know, we do read every single piece of e-mail that comes to us with an open mind. As you have already sighted, we have no problem with anyone that disagrees with us for whatever reason. The "Hate Mail" label is more for humor, although much of the e-mail we receive is full of hate, intolerance, and hysterical ranting as you have clearly read.

On to my reason for contacting you. Having read your page on the Animal Liberation Front, I have one key disagreement. Unlike the Islamic Terrorists that attacked the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001, the ALF does not believe in the harming of a human life to achieve their goals. Unfortunately, due to their non-hierarchical structure, there is much room for people who do believe in the sacrifice of human life to achieve their ends to claim to be a part of the ALF.

You do state a fact that Islamic Terrorists do execute actions with the intent and sole purpose of killing those they hate or just disagree, which is whom they harbor such hate.

The ALF, with their non-hierarchical structure, can say whatever they like, but there is no one that cares if someone is killed or not. There is no enforcement of any policy of not harming humans. The fact remains the people they target mean nothing to them by the very fact they are targets in the first place and if someone was killed during one of their direct actions, what would they do? Would they surrender themselves to the authorities? Would they take responsibility for their actions? Would they apologize to the love ones left behind? Of course not. They could not care less about the people they targeted. They would justify their actions based on whatever criteria they wish to absolve themselves of any responsibility just as they do when they destroy someone else's property. They do not care for the rights of others. They do not care for the hard work that goes into their targets making a life for themselves and raising a family. They do not care about the children of the people they decide to target.

However, if you read the ALF mission statement, in order for an action to be claimed as a true action of the ALF, it must be non-violent, and work towards the liberation of animals who are tortured or exploited. Granted, their definition of non-violent is not the same as most people, they believe that destruction of property is not violence as long as no people are harmed. This means that burning down an empty laboratory that tested on animals is non-violent according to their definition.

While I don't entirely agree with this definition, I fail to see the similarities between burning down an empty building, no matter how much money it cost to build, and killing thousands of innocent people.

It is an illegal act. If you are going to justify these actions, then you should have no problem justifying burning down the house of an arsonist or the family of an arsonist. You could also justify destruction of any property of anyone that you did not like their politics or beliefs or any other criteria you wish to make an important distinction. So what if the ALF mission statement only non-violent actions will be tolerated. What authority does a group that admits to no leadership have the right to decide that your house should be burned down in a fit of rage against society because they do not agree with some part of your life? That is exactly what the Nazis did in Germany in the years from 1930-1945. They justified their actions. If you discount the killings, are all the threats and property damage to those that the Nazi Party targeted justified? According to the ALF Mission Statement, none of this is considered an act of violence, because no one is harmed. Remember, we are discounting the murders of the Nazi Party.

Also, nowhere in their mission statement, or anywhere else in their literature do they promote the harming of children. To claim otherwise is simply ridiculous. I can not be the only person who fails to see how saying "take all necessary precautions against the harming of all animal, human and non-human," equates to "it's ok to target children." Any person with an IQ over 3 can see that there is no connection between their statement and your claim.

That is just not true. Allow us to present the following quote.

"Some say it is morally unacceptable but it is equally unacceptable to use animals in experiments. The children of those scientists are enjoying a lifestyle built on the blood and abuse of innocent animals. Why should then be allowed to close the door on that and sit down and watch TV and enjoy themselves when animals are suffering and dying because of the actions of the family breadwinner? They are a justifiable target for protest."
--Robin Webb, Press Officer of the Animal Liberation Front

There is the justification to target children. Perhaps you think that a child is not harmed at all when their house is vandalized while they are not at home. It hurts children as well as the homeowners. The fear that follows the attack to destroy property is the reason. To instill fear and terror... that is their goal. That is their intent. That is the whole purpose for the "direct action" in the first place.

Third, I agree that NAALPO is essentially an elitist, narrow-minded group of thugs. However, they are not the ALF. They are their own group of radicals. They may claim to be connected to the ALF, but as you have illustrated, they don't follow the mission statement of the ALF, and therefore they are not in fact members of the ALF. There are many groups similar to NAALPO, groups that fly the false flag of the ALF. In other words, groups that claim to be related to, or a part of the ALF. Keep in mind though, that unless a group operates within all parts of the ALF mission statement, they aren't associated with the ALF.

You are exactly right and we have never stated anything to the contrary.

Lastly, I see no mention of the groups and individuals that firebomb abortion clinics. Nor do I see any white supremacy groups mentioned outside of the KKK. The KKK is not even close to the only white supremacy group, nor are they the most violent. They're only the most publicized. To insinuate that they are the only white supremacy group worth mentioning is outrageous, Not a single organization that operates under the banner of white supremacy, and very few anti-abortion groups feel the need to take precautions against harming human life. While the ALF burns down empty laboratories, white supremacists burn down occupied houses and buildings, and anti-abortion extremists burn down clinics while they are open, and full of pregnant women. Between these groups, I feel as though it should be obvious which are terrorists, and which are merely more radical than you are comfortable with.

You will get no argument from us of the dangers and threat of the KKK and all of the other White Supremacists groups. One of the purposes of this website was to inform the public of terrorist groups that are lesser known. Everyone has heard of the White Supremacists groups and no one is unclear of the dangers. That is one of the reasons that many join just as why many join Islam. It is power over others and ability to assist in that control.

Thank you for your time,
Anonymous supporter of all living beings regardless of their race, ethnicity, species, gender, or sexual orientation.

Does that include targets of eco-terrorists or anyone else you disagree with or hate?

--TOP--

E-mails from Rick Hayden
1 of 2

22 August 2009

Rick Hayden wrote:

So when will I be able to read the write-up of all the disrespectful ways CONSERVATIVES wear the flag?

You know. All those hateful country Music stars who think it's "patriotic" to disrespect the flag by turning it into a shirt.

Yeah, I bet it will be a while before we see that one...

Rick.

You are obviously upset with the many examples showing how Liberals disrespect the American Flag. It does not seem you are actually upset with the disrespect of the American Flag, but rather of us showing Liberals in action. At least you see that they are Liberals and their hatred and disdain of America is quite clear and obvious and you do not dispute that fact. It is clear you are honest about that and we applaud you for this effort. So many critics of this website cannot see the truth or understand the facts.

We do know the rules governing the proper methods of displaying and respecting the American Flag. The rules for proper flag etiquette are on the Betsy Ross Homepage. This link has been on the website for a long time; therefore, you never had to wait to see it.

We have seen American athletes use the flag to wipe the sweat from their bodies and physically wrap themselves in the flag upon winning a gold medal in the Olympics trying to mimic what many European countries do. In other countries, this is an acceptable way to treat their country's flag, but here in America, it is not proper. It is wrong and those that know proper protocol know it is wrong, unfortunately, this is a subject no longer taught in schools. Thank you NEA. To many educators, this is a subject not worth teaching in schools. We know this to be factual because it is NOT taught in schools.

We have seen American athletes use the flag to wipe the sweat from their bodies and physically wrap themselves in the flag upon winning a gold medal in the Olympics trying to mimic what many European countries do. In other countries, this is an acceptable way to treat their country's flag, but here in America, it is not proper. It is wrong and those that know proper protocol know it is wrong, unfortunately, this is a subject no longer taught in schools. Thank you NEA. To many educators, this is a subject not worth teaching in schools. We know this to be factual because it is NOT taught in schools. The teaching of flag etiquette disappeared about the same time that prayer was no longer allowed in schools.

It is too bad that you cannot (or will not) understand the difference between someone mistakenly wearing the flag not knowing that it violates a code of behavior and deliberately showing disrespect for the American Flag and America as is done with groups like the Axis of Eve, which we have many photos proving this point. It is too bad you cannot see the difference.

Conservatives display the flag as a sign of honor and pride. Liberals burn the flag, paint the flag with disgusting slogans, display the flag upside down, and proudly trample the flag as a show of hate of another American or in making some political statement. This hatred is what Liberals consider "Patriotism" or "Freedom of Speech". They take no pride in being American; in fact, they feel shame and disgust as an American. They are only interested in what they "feel" other Americans should do for them. Liberals are not trying to make the same statement that Conservatives do, or as the example you used, Country Music Stars.

You have probably seen the examples we have on the website, but allow us to show you what we consider disrespect of the American Flag.

We cannot seem to find any examples of Country Music Stars or Country Music fans burning or deliberately destroying the American Flag to make a political statement, however, there are countless of examples of Liberals proudly participating in this activity. This anti-American activity seems to be more of a Liberal tradition rather than anything Conservatives hold dear or associate themselves.

--TOP--

E-mails from Rick Hayden
2 of 2

24 August 2009

Rick Hayden wrote:

So I'll take that as a "no, we don't point out how BOTH sides are disrespectful to the flag..."

Just what I thought.

More hypocritical Righties...

Good bye.

When anyone burns the American Flag or treats it as the website photos indicate, we will consider it disrespectful. Your problem is that the Left-Wing deliberately disrespects the American Flag with the intent of showing disrespect. When Conservatives wear the flag, it is a sign of love of the flag. There are rules that govern the proper etiquette of the American Flag and they apply to everyone. Violations of etiquette not committed with the intention of showing disrespect, a violation due to ignorance could excused and corrected through education. That is really the difference. Liberals are not ignorant of these rules and do as they do with the intent of showing disrespect and creating as much shock value as possible. That is why they do what they do.

As we clearly stated in our first reply, flag etiquette is not taught in schools today and has not been for over 30 years. Many Americans do not know there are written rules that govern treatment of the American Flag. Who has been in charge of education for the last 50 years?

Please correct us if we are wrong, but when Conservatives have the American Flag displayed on clothing, it is due to ignorance of proper etiquette rather than deliberately showing disrespect. You cannot say the same for Liberals. When Liberals disrespect the flag, as we have shown on the website, it is with the intent of being as disrespectful as possible, a distinction you cannot see.

You want to see it, but there is no hypocrisy here. We have stated it is wrong and not proper etiquette. We just do not see that displaying the American Flag with the intention of showing love for the Flag and Country not realizing that it is not proper etiquette is the same as what we have shown on the website. We know you cannot tell the difference as you have stated as much in your e-mail.

This is what we take from your e-mails to us.

1. You do not like the photos showing how Liberals show their hatred and disrespect to America and the American Flag.

2. You understand that when Liberals disrespect the American Flag, the intent is to show disrespect.

3. You do agree that it is indeed disrespectful.

4. You badly want to prove that Conservatives are disrespectful on the same level, but the only thing you can find is the occasional show of the American Flag on a T-shirt worn as a symbol of pride rather than as a statement of disrespect.

5. You have no tolerance for Conservatives for the sole reason they are Conservatives, thereby proving items #16, #113, and #143 of "Are You A Liberal".

Just show us an example of Conservatives disrespecting the American Flag to the same level of the Liberals we have shown on this website. Show us the example of Conservatives disrespecting the American Flag that seems to have gotten you so upset and then tell us why you believe it is the same level of disrespect with the intent of being disrespectful.

Here is another way of handling this issue. If a contest took place between Conservatives and Liberals to determine the highest level of disrespect of the American Flag, which group would be victorious? Please, provide specific examples that support your answer.

--TOP--

E-mails from Ali Darvish
1 of 3

12 August 2009

Ali Darvish wrote:

I have seen your website and I am highly displeased. I am an American, born one and will die one. Your website is highly inaccurate. You state that Islam is a threat to humanity, you say it is a religion of hatred and terror. Those people are not Muslim, they are fanatic idiots. They believe by killing people of other religions, even other Muslims, they will go to heaven. They have been brainwashed by leaders who want power. I hope the worst for them. Muhamad (the prophet of Islam) clearly states that when practicing Islam you musn't harm other human beings, physicaly, emotionaly, mentally, or in any way. Islam literaly means submission into peace. I just want to make it known that they are not Muslims, and that Islam is peaceful and against terrorism. All religions have finatics, Christianity, Judism, Shintoism, Islam, they all have flaws. But the truth behind each one is peace.

We have the photos of Muslims protesting carrying signs showing what they really believe. We have statements and quotes from the leaders or Islam preaching hatred. That is Islam. Islam is not an element on the periodic chart in chemistry. It is not an absolute. It is what the people that practice it and do in its name that defines what Islam is.

You claim that all religions have fanatics, and you are right. However, it does seem that Islam has more than its share of fanatics. These fanatics have positions of leadership. They preach hatred from the pulpit and maintain a strong influence over tens of millions of people. Islam is a religion of terror because of the non-peaceful way it is practiced. If only it was practiced as a peaceful religion with respect to non-Muslims, but this is not the way it is today. The leaders do not want this. They want domination of Islam over the world.

Why is it that Islam is at war with all of the other religions you mentioned, but none of them are at war with each other? Why is it that much of Islam practices Islamofascism and wishes for the destruction of Israel, Jews, and the United States? We refer to Islam as a religion based on terrorism not because of the way it should be practiced, but rather the way it is practiced.

--TOP--

E-mails from Ali Darvish
2 of 3

12 August 2009

Ali Darvish wrote:

Those leaders who preach hatred make only 5% percent of the leaders of Islam, unfortunately, that five percent are the most powerful, the world leaders.

We know only a small percentage of practicing Muslims are actually terrorists but that does not stop the Islamic culture from embracing Jihad and the hate of the Western world.

Islam is not at war with all other religions, it's all politics. It is NOT Islam that wants to wipe Isreal off the map, it is the ruthless government.

Maybe we are wrong, but it is almost all Islamic countries that want to wipe Israel off the map. No other countries in the world desire to achieve that goal. It is the ruthless Islamic governments that have been trying to achieve this goal since 1948.

As I said, those people are not Muslim, for they do not practice what Islam states.

It is easy to say that these people that live and practice Islam are not Muslim, but the evidence says different. You cannot say that no terrorists are Muslim and that is what you are saying when you say, "those people are not Muslim, for they do not practice what Islam states".

You describe Islam as an evil religion, but it's not.

We are always hearing how Jihad is being preached from the Muslim pulpit and how Islam must dominate the world. YouTube.com is filled with videos showing this concept. We are not making this up. You can close your eyes if you want to, but it is there all over the internet for all to see.

What are we to make of what these videos show? You just cannot say these are not Muslims, because they are Muslims.

Say that those finatics that claim to be Muslim are evil. It is like the Morte Chrisarero, when the Catholic Church murdered around 800,000 people (even fellow catholics) to show the church is not to be trifled with. They were not carrying out Catholicism, they were carrying out their own selfish ends. Or like the Jangeh Ram, when the Hindus attacked villages with Muslims and killed all, men women and children. They were not carrying out Hinduism, but their own selfish desires. Those people are not Muslim, only carrying out their own selfish desires. The majority of Muslims out there are peace loving, and accepting. Islam even states that Christianity, Judism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are true religions, just as true as Islam. Please, do not call Islam evil, call those people, who claim to be Muslim, evil.

We certainly agree that they are carrying out their own selfish desires. You are 100% right. Christianity had a serious problem during the Spanish Inquisition and if that was the way Christianity was practiced today, we would have the same issue with them as we do with Islam. But it is not. You have offered a very few examples of violence against Muslims. We have given you over 13,500 in the last 8 years.

You seem to be an honest person and we would like your view on the subject. If you have not already, would you please read the following editorials we have on the website and tell us what you think and if we are accurate.

--TOP--

E-mails from Ali Darvish
3 of 3

13 August 2009

Ali Darvish wrote:

Let me say this, you make a good arguement. But you don't seem to be intaking what I am saying. On your sites you say "Islam is a religion of terrorism." For the last time, that's not Islam! You say there have been over 13,500 violent attacks by Muslims. If that's true name five.

1. 11 August 2009 (Baghdad, Iraq) - Islamists blast eight Iraqis to death with bombs at a cafe and an apartment complex.

5. 10 August 2009 (Baghdad, Iraq) - Muslim bombers kill seven day laborers as they are enjoying their morning tea.

There are 5 examples in the last 4 days. Here are a few more facts.

From 01 August - 07 August 2009, there have been 56 Jihad Attacks, killing 201 people and critically injuring 358.

In July 2009, there were 207 Jihad Attacks in 25 countries killing 838 people and critically injuring 2304.

How many more examples do you want? Please keep in mind that we could spend hours citing examples.

If someone gets slapped in the face and was Muslim, you probably count that as an attack. I'm sure there have been a few by idiots claiming to be Muslim. All religions have fudes, maybe if you watched the news (closely) you would see other religions doing sick things as well.

You can make all the excuses you want, but all that does is to show us that your eyes are closed and you refuse to see the truth. There is none so blind as those that will not see.

In Isreal, a mosque with 300 peaceful Muslims was burnt to the ground while they were praying by people who claim to be Jews. In France, a riot group carrying the cross claiming to be Catholic marched into a mosque and brutaly attacked everyone that was there, many died, the rest were hospitalized. Just yesterday in China, a village consisting of Muslims was destroyed, its villagers killed. All of those acts were said to be in the name of their religion and they were all recent. The way you are accusing Islam makes no sense, it is the government, not the religion.

Why do you not just say that all other religions are just as violent as Islam? That seems to be the point you are trying to make.

We are just citing the facts and making a conclusion based on those facts. Did you view the videos of the beheadings? What are we to make of dressing kids as suicide bombers? Is this indicative of a religion of love and peace? Please, explain it to us. Maybe we do not understand. What about the Palestinians dancing in the streets when they heard the news of the attacks on 11 September 2001? Do you want to explain that or do you want to dismiss that fact?

North Korea recently bombed Japan, just because they are all Buddhist does not make Buddhism a religion of evil.

Did they bomb Japan 13000 times? You are trying to say that Muslim attacks are isolated events and are not committed by Muslims because the religion forbids it. This is not what the facts indicate.

Germany commited the Holocaust, just because it's a Catholic nation does not make Catholic evil. You need to realize this.

You have to reach pretty far to make this connection, but we are very happy you admit the Holocaust happened. Most Muslims do not believe the Holocaust. Maybe this fact has eluded you, but it was not the Catholic influence that caused the Holocaust, it was the Nazi influence. The Holocaust did not happen in the name of Catholicism, it happened under National Socialism.

Do not blaim the teachings of Islam, maybe if you read them you would understand, blaim the Government of the nation, not the peopole, the government. It is true, some of the people of Sunni Muslim (not Shia) are rather strange, but it's not Islam. There is nothing you can say to justify your case, for this is all factual, look it up of you like.

You just do not like what the facts have shown. The problem is we (non-Muslims) will never be able to change Islam; only a Muslim can change the religion so it holds a more peaceful place in non-Islamic minds. All we can do is to warn others of the danger. Perhaps if the constant bombings, the violence to non-Muslims, and the hatred of Israel would cease, the world might define Islam differently, but until that happens and followers of Islam continue the same efforts as the world has seen throughout the history of Islam, Islam will be feared for what it is.

--TOP--

09 August 2009

Sylvia Cooper wrote:

Your criticism of Dr Stephen Best should be directed at those who brutally and violently kill the vulnerable defenceless animals that cannot speak for themselves.

Our criticism is based on actions against people from those that have no authority to enforce non-existent laws they believe should be the law of the land.

Dr Best is advocating a fight in defence of innocent lives without inflicting any of the abuse and violence the perpetrators inflict on their victims. All he is saying is if there happens to be damage to property in the process, so be it - you can't protect from violence without getting in its way.

It is easy to see beauty in harm to others that do not believe as you do, but that does not make it right. This just proves that people such as Steven Best do not have principles. How can they when they believe there is no such thing as right and wrong except what they believe and nobody else matters? All they have are postures and pretend-principles that change as easily as they change their mind. They truly believe they are above the law and are insulted when others do not see their ideals as the absolute truth.

If someone with strong enough convictions believes that YOU are doing something wrong, does that give them the right to destroy YOUR property and/or take action against you to the extent they believe is appropriate? What species do you draw the line at killing? For example, is it acceptable to kill rats in your basement or mice in your attic? What about undesirable insects? Before you start with, "That's ridiculous," all we are asking is where do you draw the line? What creatures are acceptable to kill? Do you support PeTA? With their record, it is hard to believe they have not become a target of Dr. Best. Maybe that is because Animal Rights is not their primary objective; it is nothing more than a by-product of something much bigger. Here are three articles that help to explain their true agenda. Here are some quotes from Steven Best.

Here are two quotes from Steven Best. How do you justify these statements?

"We will break the law and destroy property until we win."
-- Steven Best, International Animal Rights Gathering 2005

"If I defend rights of animals, if I defend animal liberation, if I defend tactics necessary to bring about what is just and what is right, I am guilty. Guilty as charged."
-- Steven Best on air interview with KVIA-TV ABC-7, El Paso, TX 03 October, 2005

Whenever laws get in his way, he simply sees that the law in question does not apply to him. Does everyone get to enjoy this level of elitism?

It seems like there was this very same attitude of 19 hijackers on 11 September 2001. They certainly believed they were using tactics that were necessary to bring about what they believed was right.

Dr Best is advocating for a more compassionate and peaceful world where there is a respect for the basic rights of all sentient beings. If you don't support his views, you are by default supporting the escalating violence and self interest best characterised by big business and government that sacrifices lives for profit.

Sylvia Cooper

You think he is advocating for a more compassionate and peaceful world by destroying other people's property. Are we to assume that it is your opinion if we do not support the views of Dr. Steven Best etc, etc, etc...? Well, by that same logic, if you do not support the views of this website then you are by default supporting Islamofascism, Terrorism, anti-Semitism, Marxism, Socialism and everything else we believe is detrimental to free and independent people everywhere. Maybe you have a point. It is easy to see where you stand on this. Of course, the only people that are escalating violence are the Animal Rights movement; after all, they are the only ones that have suggested killing researchers. You can read more about this in "The True Agenda of the Animal Rights Movement".

Let us see if you have actually thought this out in any intelligent fashion. What have we actually said that supports whatever violence and self-interest you wish to blame on us? If you want to change the law, go ahead. If you believe the law needs to be changed, there are ways to achieve this. The problem is the Animal Rights Movement, Dr. Best included, does not want to take the time or effort to effect the change they so desire. They are spoiled and selfish people. They want what they want right now and they do not care what they have to do or whom they need to harm to get what they want. They see themselves as some sort of grandiose warrior in a fight against all evil where they are saving the world from Capitalism.

--TOP--

31 July 2009

Rehman Majid wrote:

You are spreading the incorrect message, a negative message. There are extremist in every and all types of groups , you can try to exploit islam and say it is a terrorist religion but you are ignoring the fact that many people are reverted to islam if it was such a fascist religion or terror religion people would not become muslim or carry its message.

We are not about to address the personal decision why a person decides to embrace a particular religion. You seem to imply the significance of a religion is based on some sort of popularity contest. Based on your statement, the rate of growth of a religion is a direct indication of the peaceful nature of the religion. We know what the leaders of Islam say - we have the quotes. If you wish to see what the leaders of Islam have stated, refer to "Quotes From The Islamic World".

What message do you think the followers of Islam are spreading when they kill in the name of Islam?

All you have done is take small bits of paint from the quran and tried to paint a big picture.

You might have a point if all we had done was that, but we have numerous examples and photos of the followers of Islam showing what they really do believe. Allow us to present a few of the photos showing the true face and hatred of Islam.

These photos are representative of the beliefs they show in public. Imagine what goes on in places where no one can see them.

These people hate with every fiber of their being. The hatred taught in Islam is in their hearts and is that supplies the reason for the terrorist acts they feel compelled to commit in the name of Allah.

--TOP--

31 July 2009

Elizabeth A. Watson wrote:

Came across your website. Just as others like you have their own version of who the enemy is your " target of opportunity" is firstly laughable but then also incendiary. I didn't see the Arian Nation, KKK, the American Nazi Party to name but a few.

Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or group against people or property with the intent of intimidation or coercion often for ideological or political reasons...

Guess you left those off by mistake.

If you did not see the Aryan Nation (note the correct spelling), the KKK, the American Nazi Party, you just did not look. You saw exactly what you wanted to see the way you wanted to see it. These groups are dangerous, but everyone knows this fact. That is why some people fear these groups and others join these groups. This website has focused its attention at groups lesser known to the public.

We have shown the Marxist connection many of these groups have. We show the danger these groups pose law-abiding citizens. We have quoted the leadership of these groups. We firmly believe that Socialism and Marxist doctrine is not good for anyone. All it does is to take away freedom, self-reliance, and independence from people. Apparently, you do not agree with our assessment.

With your attempt to insult the content of the website as laughable, what information do you dispute? Where do you think we are wrong with the information we have printed?

If you want to see where we have placed the White Supremacists groups, try looking at the Links Page to see where we place them. Perhaps it would be a good idea if you actually read the website rather than just make assumptions about the content.

Tell you what we will do and this is an honest offer. If you will write an intelligent article about the groups, we will be happy to include it on the website with your byline.

--TOP--

29 July 2009

Cam Hughes wrote:

After stumbling upon your page and understanding what you stand for and believe in, I'd like to ask you a few questions.

On several instances you state that your site simply serves as a "historical record" and that it is nothing more.

That is correct. We do offer our commentary that perhaps gives an insight that others might not have considered. You are welcome to ignore anything we have to say.

You spew about as much hate as those whom you claim to be "the enemy".

What have we said that is so hateful? Please, be specific.

We are respectful with anyone that writes us. We do not need to resort to name-calling or personal insults. Unlike many that write us, we are able to rest our convictions and opinions on the facts rather than ranting hysterically and making unwarranted personal attacks that offer nothing to the subject matter in question.

You even go so far as to list your information page as "THE HIT LIST".

Yes we do and we know you hate this with all of your being. Why do you think we do this? We do it for the same reason we use red font to voice our commentary... it is irritating to those that hate us and it causes them to become hysterical. They hate us for printing the truth. They refer to it as Hate Speech.

Keep in mind that we have never threatened anyone. We never try to stop anyone from speaking. The same cannot be said for those that are critical of this website. There is no doubt that you and other like-minded individuals would love to see this website disappear. You would love to see us silenced. Compare this to our clearly stating that we do not want to stop anyone from speaking. We believe in Free Speech for all, not just for those that believe as we do. Critics of this website tend not to have this conviction.

I have nary a doubt in my mind that if a page under this name were to appear, names and addresses of those whom run your webpage, on one of the several "anti-american" sites you list, that you'd do nothing short of demand an FBI investigation.

What makes you think we have not been targeted? The fact is, a few at this website have been targeted and threatened with death.

Sure, you can avoid the subject in your response and cram words in my mouth saying that I'm about to start spouting more "hateful, radical-leftist" speech, but that would do nothing more than convince me the opinion I currently have of you.

We have no problem addressing any question you have with direct answer to the question and we can do it politely and with respect.

We already have the words of the Left-Wing throughout this website saying those very words. We have the Hate Mail to us that shows the hatred of the Left-Wing Liberals. Did you not read what they proudly stated within the pages if this website?

So please, let's have a conversation. I'm not going to curse at you, or call you names, as long as you promise not to do the same to me. Convince me otherwise.

It is obvious that you have never read the Hate Mail pages we have on the website. In spite of the hatred thrown at us, we have never resorted to name-calling or personal insults. You cannot say the same for those critical of us.

With hope in receiving a response and having this letter make its way to the "hate mail" section,
cameron hughes.

Congratulations, you made it.

P.S.
We do agree on one subject! Marxism is RIDICULOUS! I'd be the first to pick up a gun if Marxism was adopted in the U.S. Down with all forms of authoritarian government!

Marxism is not just "RIDICULOUS"; it is truly dangerous. Marxism is being adopted a little bit every day. Take a good look at the "Quotes From The Political World" to see the transition.

The question really becomes will you recognize the implementation of Marxism when it happens. What do you plan on doing with that gun when you finally decide that you have had enough? The fact is that Marxism is becoming part of the American lifestyle everyday and the Liberals with their Left-Wing agenda are the ones trying to make that happen by implementing policies that enslave a population by making the people dependent on the government for everything.

Here are a few choice quotes from those guiding us into the Marxist world:

"The socialist society of universal abundance will be regulated by a different standard. It will inscribe on its banners. FROM each according to his ability, TO each according to his needs."
-- Karl Marx

"I believe in returning the nation's wealth to its rightful owners."
-- Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States

"Guess what this Liberal will be all about? This liberal will be all about socializing... uh... uh... will be about... basically taking over... and the government running all of your companies."
-- Maxine Waters (Dem) Representative of the 35th Congressional District of California during House hearings questioning Oil Executives from Shell Oil Company, 23 May 2008

"We've got to establish a Socialist economic structure that will limit private profit-oriented businesses. Whether the transition is peaceful depends on the way our present governmental leaders react. We must commit our lives to this transition... We should be very proud of our new breed of soldier... It's not organized but it's mutiny, and they have every right."
-- Jane Fonda, reported by Karen Elliott, Dallas Morning News at the University of Texas 11 December 1971

P.P.S.
I have another site for you to add under you "HIT LIST" page! These people are really, really, scary! I mean they even carry guns around and have proudly claimed that they've fired at individuals! What's this country coming to?!?

It seems you have an insight to the Minuteman that we do not have so please indulge us by answering a few questions. What have they actually done that is illegal? Have they harmed anyone outside of acting in self-defense? Have they threatened anyone aside from threatening to report them to the proper authorities? How are they different from the Guardian Angels? Do you find these people more "scary" than self-proclaimed members of the many animal rights groups such as the ALF and the ELF?

--TOP--

20 July 2009

p m wrote:

I just came across your site. I was looking into Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd and your site came up. I love the ocean, love whales and basically all animals. I would kill a human faster than I would kill an Animal. Not that I am a Animal lover but more of a person that protects innocence.

Why would you kill a human faster than you would kill an animal? That seems to be a strange introduction. Why would you focus killing a human unless that human was posing a danger to you?

In reading your site I was surprised. Your definition of Terrorist and Anti-Americanism is exact but the relevance in your usage seems a little off. No disrespect but where is your line? When does violence demand retribution? How do you relate what Paul Watson does to what Osama Bin Ladin and the 9-11 terrorist did? Watson doesn't kill.

All you have to do is to listen what Paul Watson says.

"I set out from Boston in the Sea Shepherd with a crew of 19 volunteers. I hunted down, rammed, and disabled the pirate whaling ship Sierra. We fired up the engine and made for the Sierra, which was in the middle of the harbor. I hit her at full speed..."
-- Paul Watson

Ramming another ship is a pretty dangerous activity. The fact that nobody was killed was not due to the care shown by Paul Watson. Would the Japanese ships be justified in using this tactic?

He might be a glory hound but he is not forcing his views and demanding others to do what he wants.

Actually, that is exactly what he is doing. He is forcing his views on everyone else and demanding that everyone do what he wants. That is his intent. How do you not see that fact?

He is defending international law and Mammals (innocent) that are in danger and can't defend themselves.

The Japanese seem to think they are following the law. Perhaps the law is not clearly defined or well written. If Paul Watson wants to change the law, there are ways to do this. If you have ever watched "Whale Wars" you can see that Paul Watson has clearly stated that he has no problems with Japanese ships sinking in the Antarctic Ocean and he would love to be the one that causes this to happen. He is actually offended when the Japanese defend themselves when attacked.

Yes, he is violent. Yes, he would go farther in his actions if he had license to. In this situation the Japanese are not following the law.

Well, we are in agreement with the fact that he is violent. What exactly stops him from going further? If the Japanese are not following the law, there is a remedy.

They are misleading the world about what they are doing, the amount of whaling efforts and the reason for whaling.

Apparently the law requires a certain amount of research be done on the whales. However limited the Japanese research may be the whale is not wasted. The whale provides food for a very small nation. They consume the whale meat. Killer Whales do the same thing.

There defense tactics are more violent than Paul Watson. So by your definition they are terrorists as well.

So it is your view that self-defense is an act of terrorism.

So with that known then the actions against the Japanese can't be of a terrorist nature but of a "Police Action". AND How is this against Americans? Americans can't utilize Whale products.

What legal authority does Paul Watson have to provide this "Police Action"? If they really believe the fallacy of this "Police Action" then why do they not go in with firearms?

Definitions can't be black and white. That is the problem with this country. A Law is written. People that are smarter than the one's that wrote the law figure out a way around the law. Those people take advantage of it and the rest goes to hell. America the land of opportunity has become a land of opportunists.

What does America have to do with the Japanese Whaling industry? That is more of a rhetorical question. We do not expect an answer. We know that was just a jab at capitalism.

All that needs to be done is to pass a law that makes all whaling illegal for any reason. You are complaining about some exception in the law. It is not that someone is smarter than the people that wrote the law, but rather that someone was able to include an exception within the framework of the law.

By your definition of Terrorist:

Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or group against people or property with the intent of intimidation or coercion often for ideological or political reasons...

What is the purpose of your site?

We clearly state the purpose of this website on the Home Page. This website is a list and record of people that betray and endanger America by their Seditious, Treasonous, and/or Terrorist activities.

Wouldn't your site be in be a terrorist act?

No. Maintaining a historical record is not a terrorist act. Reporting the truth about certain people and groups is not a terrorist act. You may want to consider it to be an act of terrorism, but it is not. We have not taking any action against anyone nor have we supported or encouraged any action taken against anyone. The pen is mightier than the sword.

You are posting your opinions for your political view or for financial gain.

We state the facts and sometimes some commentary. We do not care who these people are. We are more interested in their actions. We label people as terrorists based on their actions, not how nice they are to stray animals.

You are condemning people for what YOU deem as "Terrorist". Have you met these people? Have you explored all their views? Have you explored EVERY possibility to define their actions? Or have you just read what you believe to be fact and then interpret that on your site?

Their actions are no different than acts committed by the KKK. You ask a lot of questions. Have you done the same to the people Paul Watson and the other terrorists listed on this website have targeted? Have you ever met one of the men on the whaling ships? Have you explored all of their views? Have you explore EVERY possibility to define their actions? Why do you not apply these same standards to your cause?

It is all subjective wouldn't you agree?

No. There is no subjective standard here. There is right and wrong. Taking the law into your hands without property authority is wrong.

I can say FACT: The owner of the site http://www.targetofopportunity.com are using the actions of activists to promote their website and promote their views for their own gain. Can you prove me wrong?

What gain? Can you show any financial gain made by this website? What information on this website is inaccurate or incorrect? How is stating the truth a bad policy?

Not criticizing... just asking for clarification. I personally would have no problem killing a person that was about to harpoon a whale so I think what Watson is doing is not enough.

That being said, would the person you were about to kill (the harpoon man) have the right to defend himself?

But on the other hand if I saw a hunter about to kill a deer I would not be able to do anything as long as it was in season and they had their license. I would do all I could to make the deer run off but I would not do anything to the Hunter.

What do you see as a major distinction? Is a whale more deserving of living than a deer? What would you do if they did not have a license? Would you try to kill this person?

Sometimes we have to stick up for the people and animals that can't do it for themselves. Before we know it, they will be gone.

Here is a question that we can never get an answer. Where do you draw the line? We believe that you draw the line at the species level i.e. killing for survival is done at the individual species level. For humans, it is anything other than human. For Tigers, it is anything other than Tigers. For sharks, it is anything other than Sharks.

Where do you draw the line? Would you kill rats if they were infesting your home? Do they not have the same right to live as whales and humans do or are killing rats not for food, but for personal comfort, an acceptable policy.

Thanks for your time,

Patrick

Thank you very much for your e-mail. We look forward to hearing from you again in the future.

--TOP--

04 July 2009

Alfreed Marks wrote:

I would like to inform you of your grave ignorance.

So where have we made a mistake? What information is incorrect?

It is my duty as an American to point out beliefs that are not only misleading but also extremely divisive.

This is funny considering your e-mail address is nomorecapitalism@yahoo.com. Your position is clear.

You believe in freedoms, but those freedoms don't exist for ALL. It is imperative that you are aware of your own ignorance, our lives depend on it.

What are you talking about? What have we said that takes away any freedom from anyone? We believe in freedom for all.

Your site is extremely hateful and backwards.

All this website does is to record events for history. What is it that we have said that is hateful and backwards? Please, be specific.

The US is one of the biggest terrorist nations in the world. America is a stolen land taken with bloodshed. The ORIGINAL inhabitants of this land are close to extinct, And you call the people on your site "terrorists"?

Here we see the truth behind your agenda. Here comes the "I hate America,""America is evil,""America was built on the backs of the poor," and "Capitalism is the cause for all the poverty in America," and you see it as your duty as an America to bring this to our attention calling us hateful and divisive. This sounds more self-loathing on your part rather than anything we have said on this website.

All it takes is a little reading in history. Can you do that? Our number one export is weapons, those weapons kill Americans.

We were not aware the weapons that America exports were a major cause of American deaths. How many American deaths? Can you cite your source on this fact?

If you have a belief you must scrutinize it and attempt to prove yourself wrong (in anything you do).

Apparently, you do not hold yourself to this same standard.

If you want to find terrorism, look in your own backyard. Your government is one of the most terrorist nation on the planet, and if you support your government then that makes you a terrorist.

America has freed and liberated more people than all other countries combined in history of civilization.

You are afraid of a word.......SOCIALISM. I'm afraid of our government. Your rights are being stripped away as we speak, and you spend your energy on this site?

It is not the word that we are afraid of, it is the result of Socialism. We see what Socialism has done for other countries to know it is not the answer. Everyone thinks that Socialism provides everything for free, but such is not the case. Why do you think that the black market is so widespread in Socialist countries? It is because goods and services are so much in demand. If you are afraid of our government, then why are you not afraid of Socialism?

If you take a look at Socialist countries, you will notice that they always have a problem feeding themselves. Food is expensive, good housing of the quality that Americans are use to is expensive or non-existent.

Socialism promises a Utopian society that can never reached. What country has Socialism been a success over Capitalism?

It doesn't matter what kind of government you have, it's who runs it that makes the difference.

Look who is running the government. How many trillions of dollars have been spent and are going to be spent? It does matter what form of government we have, but with that statement, it is very clear on who and what you are. There is something that you do not understand and that is Capitalism allows for an ever increasing standard by which success is measured. Socialism, on the other hand, allows for an ever increasing standard of dependency. Dependency is not indicative of freedom; it is more on the line of slavery. If you have to rely on the state for what you need rather than yourself, you are a slave to the state and therefore are not free.

How do you think that America got to be so rich and prosperous? What do you think is the secret for America's success in the world and why everyone wants to immigrate to the US? It is because people can decide how they want to live and be free on their own. The individual is free to work as hard as they want to achieve what they want.

There is a small crumb of truth in this statement; it does make a difference in who is running the government. That is why government should be kept small so it cannot interfere and disrupt people's lives with over bearing regulations that are meant to control the citizens.

People are told what to believe, and this site is a product of those belief systems. This nation is in extreme danger on many fronts and the citizens must realize how wonderful life is, and not just your OWN.

Socialism takes those freedoms away. Perhaps a definition of Freedom is in order.

Freedom - The right of the individual to exist, live, and prosper for his own sake...

Freedom is something that does not exist to its fullest extent under Socialism or any other Marxist form of government. Capitalism ensures freedom.

Freedom should be for ALL humanity, not just for those who show alliance to the dark side.

Are you referring to Capitalism as the dark side? You say that America is "one of the biggest terrorist nations in the world". What other country has spread freedom to so many people around the world. America does not conquer other countries to add to our real estate holdings, we liberate people from cruel dictators.

This two party system was designed to separate people, and its working.

The Liberals in the Democrat Party have done that and do in every election.

Please take your actions as seriously as you take those CRIMINALS on your site.

At least you acknowledge that they are criminals. What actions are you referencing? Aside from our existence, what have we done that causes you such problems?

It's no longer about liberals and consevatives, those are outdated terms. It is now about LIFE or DEATH. And the road to the latter seems closer.
With Respect and Love
WAKE UP

Neom Chomsky
Gore Vidal
Naomi Kline
Amy Goodman

By referring to America as "one of the biggest terrorist nations in the world", and your ignorance of the dangers of Marxist forms of government, this e-mail did not dispute a single fact on the website.

What you say about Life and Death has some truth in it. Already, President Obama has spoken of rationing healthcare.

"If we don't reform how healthcare is delivered in this country, then we are not going to be able to get a handle on that [escalating healthcare costs]."
-- Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, in a speech given on 13 May 2009 setting the stage for Socialized Medicine

With rationed healthcare, people will not get the care they need. Some bureaucrat will decide what you receive in terms of healthcare based on some arbitrary standard set by another bureaucrat who is in charge of healthcare distribution. Healthcare should be delivered based on who needs it. There is no need to ration if there is not a shortage, but in Socialism, there is always a shortage.

--TOP--

03 July 2009

Timothy McVeigh wrote:

I want to ask what terrorism is to you? Is it using tactics of violence and intimidation to acheive a goal? That's the definition in my book. What would you call the U.S. stopping the south from becoming a sovereign state (which is a right defined in the constitution)? What would you call invading nation after nation to impose the Western will on unwilling participants, taking out their government, and hanging Iraq's leader?

Allow us to examine your argument about invading other nations. After all, what right did the United States have in helping Kuwait after Iraq invaded? We refer to that as the liberation of Kuwait, but you refer to that as imposing the will of the United States. By that same token, the same can be said for Germany. What right did we have to go to war against Nazi Germany? All they did was attack England. What business was it of ours? How much weaker would the US be without the southern states. You seem to forget what the outcome was of the Civil War - the end of slavery and a united nation, but what does that matter?

The United States has liberated more people and countries from the hands of dictators than every other country combined. Of course, you see this as forcing "Western will" of the United States and the idea of Freedom on people not worthy of it. There is a reason that people want to immigrate to the United States more than every other country on the planet. They like what the United States offers - Freedom, Democracy, and the Rights contained within the Constitution.

As far as the execution by hanging of Iraq's benevolent leader Saddam Hussein, it was the people of Iraq that hung him after a trial.

What would you call spending Billions of Federal and State dollars on terrorizing and financially/legally devistating adults responsibly using cannabis in their homes?

If you want to change the law to legalize cannabis, go right ahead. There is a way to do that. There are laws society has passed that make cannabis use against the law. If you want to change the law, go ahead.

The government has a will, and they will use any means necessary to impose it, including using the military we pay for for Martial law. They will break into our homes, confiscate our property, lock and lock us in a cell for consensual acts. How coersive taxation? If you don't believe your government is handling your money with effiency it's not like you just can't pay.. You'll wind up in jail and having your property confiscated.

You are absolutely right, that is why the size of government should be severely limited. But, if you have been keeping up with the news lately, that is not what has been happening. Government is getting larger and gaining more control over the population. Taxation and spending is out of control. Socialism is creeping in on every aspect of life. Healthcare is about to be rationed under the guise of Free or Universal Healthcare for all. If you think that healthcare is expensive now, wait until the government owns it and is in charge of dispensing it to whomever THEY think needs it.

The animal liberation movement, despite their supposed lack of regard for human life has NEVER killed one person and does everything they can to avoid it. You must understand that some of the most prolific and respected people in history have adopted an animal rights stance including Mark Twain, Jesus Christ, The Dhali Llama, and Albert Einstein. This is not some fringe group who believes that consuming meat, vivisection, and using animals for entertainment is wrong. Even many meateaters believe it's wrong but are so used to the lifestyle they feel little will to change.

Maybe the animal liberation has never killed anyone, but if someone died in one of their raids, would they take credit for the action? They have killed animals. Thousands of animals have died because of Direct Action attacks of the Animal Liberation Movement. We have examples on the website.

I'm offended that you would call animal liberation Marxist. I am a market anarchist who believes very much in the free market. I'm not a god damn Marxist and I still believe that animal liberation movements are a good thing.

You may be offended, but that does not change the facts. If you study the animal rights movement, you can clearly see that Marxist doctrine is embedded within the movement. Here are a few good examples.

Here is a question that no animal rights activist will answer. Allow us to present it to you. If someone holds strong convictions about a particular position and you live outside of that position, do they have the right to destroy your property, threaten and terrorize you and your family, and do whatever they can to interfere with your life? It requires a simple "Yes" or "No" answer.

What are the other options? Keep protesting and writing senators who will never listen? If the world won't stop abusing living things with nervous systems, minds, souls, and families then we must have the next best thing.. Of course we wish everyone would just realize how horribly hypocritical they're being by claiming to be moral, or even spiritual but still consuming their fellow intelligent life. Most of these so called Christians would have eaten the Lamb of god if they thought he would have tasted good on the BBQ!

Maybe you have a point. Perhaps you need to follow the advice of Dr. Jerry Vlasak and kill a few people to make the point. All of the other direct actions have met with little success and have not really changed anything, aside from financial loss to businesses and other capitalist endeavors.

I don't expect you to change your narrow mind. You can call the ALF and SHAC and the SEA SHEPHARD whatever the hell you want. But the bottom line is, the word terrorism is just the word one group/militia/army uses against another. I guess it's fine for us to blow the hell out of Muslims for not being enough like us...we call ourselves heroes, or freedom fighters... but if someone breaks into a laboratory and free's a few of god's creatures (who have crap done to them like seeing how many Aspirins they can take before they die, or giving them cancer to see if you can cure it) he's a terrorist.

We use the word "Terrorism" with regards to actions of those that have committed terrorist actions. Sorry if you do not like it. If you were the target of these groups, how would you define their actions?

It seems to be a point of where you draw the line. What living organism is sacred and what organism is it acceptable to kill? Most species draw the line at their like species i.e. everything other than human. Others draw the line at dogs and cats. Others draw the line at the life of rocks. What creatures have you killed without consideration for their lives - Bugs, moles, or mice in your attic? If you have ever used bug spray or swatted mosquitoes, you have killed God's Creatures not for science, but for your own selfish comfort.

So, the question remains, where do you draw the line?

No matter. You'll never be able to stop decentralized, covert cells. I've been a supporter of animal rights/liberation/welfare for 11 years now, and I still can't find my way into the inner circle of activists...or excuse me..."terrorists". Why not spend your time on real terrorists like the bloods, or the gangster disciples, or domestic Islamic groups, or Aryan Nations? These are the people who not only think it's okay to hurt people, but think it's right to hurt people.

Society will probably never stop murder and robbery either. Criminals are criminals. They break the law for a variety of reasons, most are because of selfish beliefs that they can do whatever they want regardless of the law and because they believe that no one can stop them.

The Animal Rights Movement thinks it is acceptable to harm people. All you have to do is to listen to what they have to say.

As far as your e-mail address (timothyxmcveigh@yahoo.com), you know who you consider worthy of a namesake and what you really stand for better than we do. Keep in mind that Timothy McVeigh's direct actions are more in line with the ALF and the other Animal Rights groups you favor and support than in anything we represent.

Here is a question... did you favor Timothy McVeigh receiving the death penalty? We did.

--TOP--

13 June 2009

K.L.M Westmin wrote:

Hello. I am writing in response to some of your comments about Faisal Khetani and the incident with SGT Hess.

First, I would like to say that I think what happened was absolutely atrocious and it was SO wrong to send a response like that to one of our fine troops; they are out there fighting for America and they deserve the utmost respect.

It was beyond atrocious and you are absolutely right, our troops deserve our utmost respect and that is what this website gives them. One of the ways we give that respect is to show our disgust when such an assault is committed against our troops.

That being said, I find the comment "that operate with the sole purpose of undermining American troops and empowering the terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as possible." to be completely ridiculous. It just so happens that the individual running this business is of a middle eastern/asian heritage.

It is not ridiculous at all. And what does it matter that the person is of Middle Eastern/Asian heritage? We never mentioned anything about his heritage or ethnic background. His heritage was never an issue, but apparently it is with you as you took the time to breech the subject.

Many different races of Americans oppose the war for various reasons. I am certain that a person of black, hispanic or white heritage would not have been accused of trying to help the terrorists win. It is this kind of mindset that contributes to the ignorant undermining of our country and everything it stands for. As a PROUD AMERICAN, I take personal insult in those who walk around talking this way or condoning the threatening responses he received afterwards. That's not what this country is about nor is the message we are trying to convey to the terrorists we fight against intended to be, "It's okay for us to stereotype your whole culture and heritage, but it's not okay for you to do it." We cannot be seen as hypocrites because of the ignorant word vomit of narrow minded individuals. Don't forget what happened the last few times different countries did those things; the Holocaust, concentration camps for Japanese Americans, slavery, etc. It's a muddy road to go down and our men and women have died to uphold the values that make us all free men. Please don't trash their honor or the country's honor with such ignorance.

If you look again, you will see we were not speaking to any particular ethnic background. No one is more in tune with the Holocaust in Germany and the Rape of Nankin in China. We stand against that on every level. We mentioned CodePINK, Cindy Sheehan, and other peace activists. There is no doubt that these people would have no problem helping the very enemy that is trying to kill Americans. They want to release the detainees in Guantanamo Bay. They undermine the military every chance they get. That attitude we mentioned about is the same attitude that causes protesting the Marine Corps Recruiting Office in Berkeley, CA. It is also the one that supplies aid and comfort to the "other side" as was done with CodePINK.

Again, I believe that SGT Hess and all of our troops deserve so much more than an apology and free supplies after that heinous behavior, but giving out all of his contact info to people so they can "give him their thoughts" then asking them to "be polite" is beyond inappropriate. It's the very habit our parents tried to force us to break; the whole "he started it!" business. Forget the fact that you misquoted the email response (watch the FOX news story) because it was wrong to send either way. No- years of world history show us that 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Actions have consequences. There is nothing inappropriate with people giving an opinion to a disgusting action such as the action of Discount Mats. If you want people to change, peer pressure is a good way to effect that change, but in your opinion, everyone should just shut up and not address the disgusting behavior. Sorry, we will not bury our head in the sand. Why do you think that feedback is inappropriate? It is not a matter of "he started it", but rather a matter of action/reaction.

We did not misquoted the e-mail from Sgt Hess or the response from Faisal Khetani, but if you think we did, please send us your copy of the e-mail and send us the link to the Fox News Story. Here are some of the references we have.

SGT Hess,
We do not ship to APO addresses, and even if we did, we would NEVER ship to Iraq. If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq.

If the store owner did not want to ship to APO addresses, that is no problem. But to discriminate by adding the rest of the commentary is reprehensible. Exactly what does Sgt. Hess have to say in the matter of troop deployment? What can Sgt. Hess do to pull out of Iraq? If Faisal Khetani did not want to do business with Sgt. Hess because he did not agree with the deployment of troops in Iraq, that would be fine. If Faisal Khetani did not want to ship to APO address, that is a business decision. The only reason that he added his commentary to the e-mail was to be insulting and to let Sgt. Hess and his men that their efforts were not supported and to cause mental anguish.

Please don't tarnish the good name of this incredible nation that our troops fought and died for with your narrow minded, racist and completely inappropriate comments. I love America and I know it is so much greater than that.

Thank you for your time.

K.L.M

We have not tarnished anything nor have we insulted anyone. All we have done is to record a historical event. Now, please explain where we have made any racist comments. Again, we never mentioned anything about his heritage, you did. His heritage was never an issue, but apparently it is with you as you are the only one that has given race any weight at all.

If by narrow-minded comments you are referring to the truth, then "Yes," we are guilty. The truth is a narrow path and we maintain it. Once you start to veer off course, you are no longer telling the absolute truth. Why do you believe that telling the truth about such a hateful e-mail is wrong or inappropriate and why do you think that disgust to such an e-mail is such an unusual response?

--TOP--

E-mails from Mujtaba Alhadi
1 of 2

24 May 2009

Mujtaba Alhadi wrote:

It's funny actually, because you think you are the big experts in Islam. People who don't know anything and just say what comes in their mind. Knowledge makes power. You dont have knowledge about the islam, and you are just writing something from your home in some country. You don't know whats happining everywhere. You just whatch the news and then think you know evertything arround the world. My opinion please people finish your schools and inshallah you will find real work instead of dong this useless work. Please i'm begging you people just finish your school and find work. If you do that then the world would be a better pleace.

With love, From Holland

We have recorded historical events and given an opinion on those events. We have quoted the leaders of Islam and we understand what they say. We know enough to understand the danger that Islam poses to non-Muslims. There is no misunderstanding the words and actions of the leaders and followers of Islam and the countless number of events that take place i.e. the attacks by Muslims in the name of Islam.

Allow us to address the statement you made regarding our lack of knowledge of everything that is happening everywhere. If we knew what was going on everywhere, we could stop many, if not all, of the terrorist attacks by Islamic terrorists.

Aside from the e-mails we have printed, the following links are everything we have written about Islam on this website.

You have advanced the idea that we do not know what we are talking about. You have suggested that what we see and hear on the news is not accurate. Please read the links we just presented to you and tell us specifically where we are incorrect and/or inaccurate. If you will show us our error, then we will make the necessary correction(s).

Your problem is that we have shown Islam as it really is and you do not like it. Let us explain to you certain realities. We do not believe that all Muslims are terrorists. We do not believe that all Muslims are evil. It is the nature of the religion that is the problem. We have gotten many e-mails from Muslims that make the following statement:

"Islam is the final religion, and Mohammed is the last prophet, and Qu'ran is the final words of Allah."

When you take that attitude/statement into consideration, everything we have written becomes clear. Islam as a religion has no tolerance for other religions. Islam doctrine makes up the core beliefs of Islamic terrorists and is the reason for their actions.

If Islam would just exist for Muslims, there would be on problem, but that is not the case. Islam is at war with every other religion and culture while the reverse is not the case at all. America is not at war with Islam, Islam is at war with America. Most terrorists are Muslim and they use Islam as their reason/excuse for their actions as do the Muslims that support their actions. It is not just the terrorists that are followers of Islam, it is also the people that support their actions.

You cannot deny the following facts. During the terrorist attacks on the morning of 11 September 2001, Muslims all over the world were dancing in the streets and passing our candy in celebration of the achievement. Their hatred was on display for all to see.

So please, do not attempt to tell us that we are uneducated and have it wrong or that we have misunderstood the reality of the situation. We know the truth. We have printed the evidence and you have not contradicted a single fact and based on the numerous misspellings in the one and only paragraph in your e-mail, perhaps it is you that need to finish your education.

--TOP--

E-mails from Mujtaba Alhadi
2 of 2

26 May 2009

Mujtaba Alhadi wrote:

Look i don't have the mood to read all the links and stuff. And that is not because i can't find an error.

You made the stated that we were writing nonsense and that we did not know what was going on in the world. You stated that we needed to go back to school because of we were not smart enough to write about Islam only to discover that you have not read anything we have written about Islam. In other words, you have no idea what we actually said about Islam therefore, you have no idea what you are saying. We have clearly stated the facts and you refuse to read what we have written. All you can do is to dismiss everything we have written without having even read what we wrote. Would you please explain this?

It's because when i see somewhere ""Islam is terrorist religion"" I see that everything is based on wrong information.
You are against terrorist and radical muslims. We are also against that so i dont get your point, by saying that muslims
say that terrorist are good. And if American people die we party. Thats not true. Thats nonsens. Muslims arent partying when people die.

On 11 September 2001, dancing in the streets and passing out candy to kids in celebration was exactly what was going on in Palestinian neighborhoods. You can deny it all you want, but it was televised around the world on many World News Networks.

We never said that all Muslims were terrorists. You will not find that on this website. However, we can offer you a quote of someone that did advance that idea that all Muslims should hate Americans.

"Every Muslim, from the moment they realize the distinction in their hearts, hates Americans, hates Jews and hates Christians. For as long as I can remember, I have felt tormented and at war, and have felt hatred and animosity for Americans."
-- Osama Bin Laden, Leader of al-Qaeda

Perhaps you should bring that to the attention of your local Mosque. Perhaps you should stand up against this as we have on this website. Maybe if you actually read what we have written and printed on this website, you would become more enlightened on the subject instead of merely dismissing us entirely.

you say: Muhammad directed Muslims to wage war on other religions and bring them under submission to Islam. Within the first few decades following his death, his Arabian companions invaded and conquered Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian lands.

That's not true, Muhammed said to us that we have to live in harmony with the other religions. The mission of islam isnt to kill people!

Then why are the suicide bombers and terrorists doing just that around the world? Have you not seen the news lately? There are attacks on civilians every week done in the name of Islam.

If what you say is true, they why is Islam so hateful of the Jews and of Israel? Why have Muslims all over the world sworn death to Israel? This is an ideology advanced in Mosques and by the Islamic leadership all over the world.

You also say: "Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!" (The last words from the cockpit of Flight 93). Translated means "God is great". It is a common Arabic expression, used as both an informal expression of faith and as a formal declaration to show of love of Islam and hatred for all that is not.

So you say that if we say : God is great, its a hatred for all that is not. That's nonsens. If a believer in God says: God is great, we honour God and his greatness

We are not asserting that by saying "God is Great", is a show of hatred for any one. The terrorist hijackers that hijacked Flight 93 did to show their expression of their faith in Islam and their act was in the name of Allah. It is safe to assume that the Islamic terrorist that hijacked the three other planes, American Airlines Flight #11, United Airlines Flight #175, and American Airlines Flight #77, said the same thing just before they hit their targets. It was certainly on their mind. They honored Allah and Islam by their terrorist action of hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings. They honored Allah by killing as many innocent people as possible thereby proving everything we have said that you refuse to read.

--TOP--

18 May 2009

G. Elsendiony wrote:

All of this information is postively wrong. Islam means peace. and just like there are bad people in America there might be bad people in Islam, but there isnt.

Where did we make an error? In our article "Islam - A Religion Based on Terrorism", all we did was to show how Islam is practiced around the world today. Islam might mean peace, but that is not how those that embrace the religion practice it. They kill indiscriminately and without remorse and they do it in the name of Islam.

Becauses those terrioist groups are NOT muslim, no matter how many times they say they are. Muslim's pray 5 times a day to God (pboh) we Give to the poor. During the Month a Ramadan we fast. We fast because 1. God told us to. 2. to see and go through what poor families go through 3. to have self control. We have respect, we dont call elders my there names more like proper name such as aunt, or uncle. Most women cover themselves for many reasons. 1. God told us to 2. to be safe and etc. The bible has been re wroten and changed so has the torah but the Qu'ran has not been touched. the words are straight for God. We do believe in all the prophets such as Adam, Abraham, Jesus, Moses etc. (pbot). Please do not post things like this, Islam being about terrioistism is a sereotype and i, myself dont like to be known that way.

According to you, Osama bin Laden would be surprised to find out that he was not a Muslim, as would the many religious leaders of Islam in Iran and around the world. They have all been speaking of the Great Satan i.e. the United States of America, and praying for the death of all Jews and the destruction of Israel. That does not sound like a religion's peaceful doctrine. All of that is contrary to the statement you just made.

Have you stood up against Islamic terrorism while praying in your Mosque? Have you confronted anyone in your Mosque and condemned HAMAS and Hezbollah attacks against Israel? Have you prayed for the death of Jews and/or the destruction of Israel?

I am 100% proud to be a Muslim and i dont support fighting nor war etc. We believe in peace, respect, love one another.

When you are in your Mosque with your fellow Muslims, are you outspoken against Muslim suicide attacks in Israel? Do you believe in Israel's right to exist or do you support the destruction of Israel? Do you acknowledge the Holocaust and the genocide of the Jews (and others) in Germany under Hitler and the Nazis?

One Story is our about our prophet Muhammed (pbuh) i will tell you. Every morning one of the prophets neighbors would place thorns and garabage in front of his home. The prophet wouldn't yell at him or treat him any different for care and respect. One day he walked outside and there was no thorns. He knew that something is wrong. He went to his neighboor which hated him and the prophet saw that he was sick. The Neighboor was curious that why he would come visit him when everyday he disrespects him. .. this story shows that what thing we believe in out of the thousands and millions is that before we think about ourselves we need to think of our fellow neighboors. I can go on all day.. but as i said before, before you put or say these things please take time to research and learn more about Islam.

What did we write that was incorrect? So far, all you have said is that everything we have written is positively wrong. We clearly know your statement is incorrect because the historical facts state otherwise. As much as you would like everyone to forget or ignore these acts of terrorism and the general attitude of modern day Islam, this website is here to make sure that people have the information and will not forget the truth.

There is little doubt that you could go on all day about the virtues of Islam and the "peace loving" Muslims where you ignore the beheadings, the hatred taught in Mosques around the world, the hatred of Israel, and the long history of terrorism that has become synonymous with Islam.

First of all, there have never been "trillions" of people, so your entire premise of the numbers of Muslims is entirely false and imagined.

Second, in most Islam countries, the practice of religions other than Islam is frowned upon, discouraged, or illegal, so please, do not tell us that Islam has respect for other religions that have been on Earth far longer than Islam. Believers in Islam are known for killing others i.e. non-believers for the sole reason of not being Muslim. Around the world, followers of Islam kill because of their religion in the name of their religion. Stories like this are on the news every day. Hatred of Israel and Jews from Muslims is a constant. You can go onto any Islamic website and see the hatred for Jews and America. Where is the peace and love that you claim is what Islam is all about? You never see Muslims standing for peace. You only see them standing for peace with the death of Americans, Jews, and Israel. That is not peace... that is genocide.

--TOP--

18 May 2009

Tim Poe wrote:

Subject: shocked at your hatard!

sirs,
i pray you are on meds and going to your therapy sessions...what a nut job! you are a very dangerous person, i pity you and i shall say a prayer for your soul.
kind regards,
poe

We believe that you mean "Hatred" because we are not sure what "Hatard" means. We will continue this response based on that assumption.

This e-mail is very typical of the disdain that many have for this website because we have the audacity to print the facts and have an opinion about the facts. In your e-mail, you have not offered a single example of where we have shown any hatred for anyone. You have not offered a single example of where we have printed anything that was not true and accurate.

Where have we shown hatred for anyone? All we have done is to print the truth about what these groups and people are doing. You were not exactly clear what you are speaking about, so please, be specific with your response. You were not exactly clear on what people or groups hold your interest so please allow us to show you some examples of what hatred really is from a variety of examples from the website.

"Every Muslim, from the moment they realize the distinction in their hearts, hates Americans, hates Jews and hates Christians. For as long as I can remember, I have felt tormented and at war, and have felt hatred and animosity for Americans."
-- Osama Bin Laden, Leader of al-Qaeda

"When jihad becomes an individual duty, it applies to women too, because women do not differ from men when it comes to individual duties, the brothers of apes and pigs [the Jews] who should taste the bitterness of death."
-- Yunis al-Astal, speaking about the need for suicide bombers and the importance of martydom in a sermon on 11 April 2008

"The only white man you can trust is a dead white man."
-- Robert Mugabe, Leader of Zimbabwe

"All you Jews can go straight to hell."
-- Quannell X, National Youth minister for the Nation Of Islam, New York Daily News,
October 17, 1995

"America must be burned! America is no good at all."
-- Louis Farrakhan, Leader of the Nation of Islam

"The death of over 120 white people is a very beautiful thing."
-- Malcolm X, Los Angeles on June 3, 1962 upon learning of a plane
crash

"I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks who fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through windows. Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it."
-- Bruce Friedrich, PeTA Campaign Director, Vegan Campaign Coordinator, Animal Rights 2001 Conference, July 2, 2001

"As my close colleague, Dr. Jerry Vlasak, surmised - and I back him 100% on this - the assassination of a vivisector or two would probably save millions of nonhuman animal lives. And given the escalating situation at UCLA, who knows what may happen?"
-- Jason Miller, relentless anti-capitalist, animal liberationist, and senior editor and founder of Thomas Paine's Corner and a Press Officer for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office (NAAPO)

"The blood of timber executives is my natural drink, and the wail of dying forest supervisors is music to my ears." A charming cartoon in the same Journal says: "Trees are for hanging. Kill a developer."
-- Dave Foreman, Earth First! founder and Sierra Club director, 1995-1997

These are just a small number of examples of the hatred coming from the people and groups found on this website. There are hundreds of other quotes showing examples of hatred and even death threats. Now, what exactly have we said that you consider some form of hatred? Again, we ask you to be specific.

--TOP--

15 April 2009

Deborah wrote:

So people lost money torturing animals?

Well BOO - HOOOO. Many of those "attacks" ended extreme pain and suffering. So the FUR industry lost money and you want to use that as some kind of evidence of terrorism? You just don't like what THEY are doing and it is quite obvious you have an agenda in bending the minds of anyone who comes to your site. Yes, everyone has an agenda, even ALF. Thank GOD!

You are right; we do not like what these so-called "Activists" are doing. We do not like that some individual has decided that they have the right to illegally destroy what is not theirs to destroy. We do not like that they have decided that their convictions to their beliefs gives them the right to attack and destroy property of others. This is no different than the Brown Shirts in Nazi Germany during the 1930s.

Here are the questions that no animal rights proponent who supports the direct actions against others ever answer. If someone has strong enough convictions to their beliefs, does that give them the right to attack and destroy your property because they do not agree with some aspect of your life? It does not matter how irrational their belief is, if their convictions mean so much to them are they morally right to do whatever they feel necessary to achieve the ends they desire by any means necessary?

Personally, I think unnecessary torture should not be allowed to continue. And "nice" never does much. Even the ALF doesn't get much response if you'll notice. They realize they have to take action to stop this, because most people just don't care as long as they get money. I am thinking ALF knows this and realizes if money is what they care about, then take the money away. Simple.

And exactly what have you stopped? You have not changed a single law. You have only shown that some people can be intimidated and do not have the resources to fight against terrorist attacks. Someone is going to take up the slack. Insurance repays the damages.

The unnecessary torture you refer to is what is in question. Medical experiments on animals are necessary. If it was not, it would not be done. How else are you going to find new medicines for any human and/or non-human creature that needs medicine?

Not to mention that news of their their activities will perhaps get people to stop buying the product that supports torture.

Really? The only people that would not buy these products are the ones that are making the attacks. What attack on a slaughterhouse has changed anyone's eating habits and stopped anyone from eating meat? If anything, all you have done is to enrich the other slaughterhouses that have to take up the slack.

More and more people are willing to buy products that don't test on animals. Whole Foods knows this, they don't sell products that are animal tested.

If these companies did not have the product liability on the products they sell, they would gladly stop testing their products on animals. That is a cost they would gladly drop if they could. Perhaps you should look at your actions from that angle. Of course, that is only wishful thinking because for the most part, these Animal Rights Activists are anti-Capitalists and to not like the fact that these companies are showing a profit. To you, this is nothing more than a greedy and selfish agenda.

And by the way, do we really need oven cleaner put in the rabbit's eye to tell us not to let our child drink the stuff? It is just common sense. So why is there still the SAME repetitive tests like this?

Answer: THE MONEY. It's paid for. So what animal research company is going to turn down those millions?

Something had to be done. I don't advocate bodily harm and perhaps that verbage you posted from the ALF is old information. Or fabricated. I do not ascribe to harming people, and where is your "evidence" that they ever have?

With the litigious nature of our society, it is probably a liability question, unless perhaps, the company is trying to make a better and less dangerous oven cleaner that is easier on the environment and is more "Green" in an attempt to appease people like you.

Nothing on the website is fabricated and you know it. Please, do not insult us by claiming you do not ascribe to harming people, that is what the entire campaign or attacks is designed to do - harm people financially. And if someone is killed, who cares? Are you going to shed a tear for them when someone is burned to death? What if it is a neighbor of the person you decided to attack? It almost happened, luckily, the bomb did not explode due to the incompetence of the bombers, but we cannot always count on their incompetence to save the day.

Do your other research about animal research. LOOK AT PETA TV for 10 full minutes. If you make it past the primate research or the kill boxes (inhumane euthanasia) and your heart remains untouched, then you never had one to begin with. And spare me the speech about how this kind of "science" helps everyone. Again, so much of it is repetitive and many times just so the doctor can get his or her name on the "research".

Great, you brought up PeTA. Perhaps you should read the information we have on PeTA. In 2006, PeTA killed 2,981 dogs, cats, puppies, kittens, and other animals. This is 97% of the animals left in their care and that is according to PeTA's own records they supplied to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2006). For comparison, the Virginia Society for the Protection of Animals (which operates in Norfolk, Virginia, as does PETA) euthanized less than 2.5% of the 1,404 animals placed with them in 2006. While PETA collects tens of millions in donations by claiming to advocate for the welfare of animals, the group has actually killed 17,400 pets since 1998.

"I often receive phone calls from frantic people who have surrendered their pets to PeTA with the understanding that PeTA will 'find them a good home.' Many of them are led to believe that the animals will be taken to a nearby shelter. Little do they know that the pets are killed in the PeTA van before they even pull away from the pet owner's home."
-- Dana Cheek, Former Norfolk SPCA Director

From our website:

In 2003, PeTA had a 14% adoption rate compared to the Virginia SPCA that had a 73% adoption rate and the Virginia Beach SPCA had a 66% adoption rate. In 2005, that dropped to less than a 10% adoption rate. PeTA raised almost $30 million in 2003. Most of this was from people that thought their donations were actually helping animals. Nothing could be further from the truth. During the past ten years, PeTA has spent four times as much on criminals and their legal defense than it has on shelters, spay-neuter programs, and other efforts that actually help animals. The cold, hard reality is that PeTA uses this money to support organizations like the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front.

Over a six-year period, of the 12,735 animals obtained by PeTA's Virginia headquarters only 2540 had actually been adopted out while the remaining 10,195 were destroyed. In 2004, the Virginia office of PeTA obtained 2639 animals. Of these, 2,278 were euthanized and homes were found for only 361 of them. Here a picture of some of the 2,278 dead ones.

Do you think we are fabricating this information? Did we make up that PeTA was throwing the dead animal bodies into dumpsters behind a shopping mall? But, this is PeTA in all of its glory. If you believe that this is not right, why are you not depriving PeTA of money? Why are you not supporting attacking them with a direct action campaign? But let us not confuse the issue with a bunch of relevant facts.

And pardon me, but I don't need to know what happens to a kitten as it dies of thirst in a cage. I was shown that biology film in the sixth grade. All I learned was that a kitten can die with a look of panic on its face, pawing at a cage.

What film was that? What was the purpose of the experiment or the lesson your biology teacher was teaching?

I mean seriously, there have been some results that have come from research, but there are alternatives now. And if we continue to demand alternatives, we get them.

What are the alternatives?

Whatever we subsidize, we get more of. Having some ho-hum attitude about it all and allowing it is to make it easy for abuse to happen. And abuse is such an overused word. This is blood-curdling horror. So to study burns the lab had to blow torch the pig? To see what a corrosive would do they had to put the primate in a box and force feed it industrial chemicals until it pukes and trembles? Again, look at the footage. And this stuff was on PBS as well and it is interesting to me there is a movement to ridicule ones that are trying to stop it. Or worse, there are organizations who will make THEM look wrong. What is really wrong here? Most of the list about ALF was talking about monetary damage!

How else do you experiment and find other cures and medicines to heal burns? What are the alternatives? You clearly stated that there are alternatives, what are they? Be specific. We are waiting.

Lstly, I find it abhorrent that people go after the ones who are trying to end the suffering of sentient beings who have no choice in their life spent in a cage and their death ending in terror and agony. If we are to have our lives bettered, I say it starts with compassion.

--Deborah

Compassion is great. What medical advances come through compassion? Animal Rights Activists keep saying that there are alternatives, but they never tell anyone what they are. Using your example, how do you find new methods of skin grafts without using animals, unless you intend to experiment on humans like the Nazis did? Is that your alternative? You clearly state that there are alternatives to burn research. How to you find new treatments for burns? Go ahead... we are waiting.

So, let us list the questions presented to you.

If someone has strong enough convictions to their beliefs, does that give them the right to attack and destroy your property because they do not agree with some aspect of your life?

If their convictions mean so much to them are they morally right to do whatever they feel necessary to achieve the ends they desire by any means necessary?

Medical experiments on animals are necessary. If it was not, it would not be done. How else are you going to find new medicines for any human and/or non-human creature that needs medicine?

What attack on a slaughterhouse has changed anyone's eating habits and stopped anyone from eating meat?

Are you going to shed a tear for them when one is burned to death? What if it is a neighbor of the person you decided to attack?

If animals are not used somewhere in the research process, how else do you experiment and find other cures and medicines to heal burns? What are the alternatives?

Do you intend to support experimentation on humans as the Nazis did? Is that your alternative?

We would love to have an answer to these questions. So far, we have never gotten good answers from any supporter of Animal Rights concerning direct action against any of their targets. We are waiting.

--TOP--

28 March 2009

E-mails from sun shine
1 of 6

sun shine wrote:

There is a significant difference between a person who IS Muslim and someone SAYS that they are muslim

Unfortuanatly, the ignorant dont see such a difference.

Are the leaders of Islam that continually preach hatred to America and the western countries considered Muslim or are they just saying that they are Muslim? Are the followers of Islam that adopt Nazi doctrine considered Muslim or are they just saying that they are Muslim? Are the followers of Islam that have sworn to kill Israelis and Jews considered Muslim or are they just saying that they are Muslim? Are the followers of Islam that committed the acts of terrorism sited on this website considered Muslim or are they just saying that they are Muslim?

Because they all have stated they are the true followers of Islam and represent the very essence of being a Muslim. In fact, it is in the name of Islam that these acts of hatred, terror, and violence are committed.

--TOP--

E-mails from sun shine
2 of 6

30 March 2009

sun shine wrote:

wat about those who commit such acts in any other religions?? who are you to judge? ANY terrorist, or someone who commits such crimes, cannot POSSIBLY be muslim. Have you no shame? Putting others muslims in such a position as to take blame, for horrible crimes commited to those who call themselves muslim? Or are you purely happy to know that you have disturbed so many? by these lies? by these intentional insults at what we believe? What a burden it must be to sleep with. Are you aware that MOST of your viewers were curious muslim children? Poor children, to see thier religion beaten on in such a way.

We are able to judge their actions based on ethics and morals that clearly define right and wrong. If you actually read the website, we address many terrorists that are not Muslim. However, you will find that most of the large-scale terrorist campaigns are committed, financed, and supported by Muslims. The question should be, "have they no shame?" We have only reported the facts as they have happened. If you think we have lied or are inaccurate with anything on the website, please be specific in your accusation. As we are not Muslim, it is not our burden to carry. Perhaps if the Muslim community would stand up against the terrorist actions committed in the name of Islam, the burden you carry may not be such a problem.

We were not aware that most of the viewers of this website are Muslim children. If the truth causes such pain, it is not our intention to cause any pain, but the truth is the truth. Anything else would be to lie to anyone that views the website, and we do not want to lie to anyone.

--TOP--

E-mails from sun shine
3 of 6

30 March 2009

sun shine wrote:

i do not want you to make any corrections to your website, every hero needs an enemy, just as every story needs that bad guy. And you, my friend, are that bad guy. People like you make muslims closer to thier religion, so thank you. I have too much respect for olders as too follow up on this argument. "dont feed the flame" as my aunt told me.

We had not planned to make any corrections to our website as what we have on the website is accurate and correct and you have not disputed a single fact on the website. All you have done is to argue that most of our viewers are Muslim children; a theory that we are not sure is completely accurate. In fact, we would be very surprised if that were the case.

If you want to call us the "Bad Guy" because we have the courage to print the truth, then so be it. We gave you the opportunity to dispute the facts presented on the website and we even asked you questions that you refused to answer.

As for your respect to the "olders" to follow up on this argument, it would be our guess that you have no argument to dispute the facts on this website because the facts on this website cannot be disputed.

The fact that you try to label us "the bad guy" shows the hatred you have for non-Muslims. There were several possible arguments you could have made showing that the problems caused by the leaders of Islam were from a radically small group, but instead, you decided to give us a label referring to us as the enemy thereby showing the hatred that seems to be inherent with the Muslim belief system.

--TOP--

E-mails from sun shine
4 of 6

30 March 2009

sun shine wrote:

and that interperatation of what everyone says if excatly why you have so much "information" to put on your site.

What we have on the website is not an interpretation, but rather an accurate accounting of the deeds done by Muslims that use Islam as an excuse for their terrorist actions.

It is not an interpretation but an accurate accounting that shows Muslims committing acts of terrorism against "Non-Believers".

Again, you have not disputed a single piece of information on this website that you hold in such low regard. Our existence showing the truth is why you hate us.

--TOP--

E-mails from sun shine
5 of 6

31 March 2009

sun shine wrote:

i never remember saying i hated you. There is another misinterpretation

No, you never did say you hated us; you just referred to us as the "Bad Guys". Perhaps you like and admire the "Bad Guys". When you referred to us as the "Bad Guys", it appears to be more of a sign of hatred rather than a sign of endearment. Of course, that is more of an assumption on our part rather than a misinterpretation.

Were we wrong about your "Bad Guys" label?

dont feed the flame.

We are not feeding the flame, but merely reporting the truth and maintaining a record of history of which not a single point was disputed by you. You have not contradicted a single fact and I would suggest that it is you that is feeding the flames with hatred and lies by referring to us as "bad guys" for merely remembering historical facts and having the audacity to actually write them down as a record for all to see.

have you any answers beside those of which you have already given?

What questions are you asking? What information do you dispute? What information on this website is incorrect? If you answer, please be specific.

--TOP--

E-mails from sun shine
6 of 6

01 April 2009

sun shine wrote:

i do not wish to revisit your website to search for any "mistakes" becuase that will only bring uneeded anger back from when i first started writing to you. This is not becuase there isn't any, it is merely the fact that your website influences unnecessary disputes. I simply wish you to think next time you post unnecesary pictures or comments that are offending to other people who are NOT terrorists (AKA everyone who visits your website)

We have not shown you any anger or hatred. We have answered your all of your e-mails and have asked you to cite any inaccuracies, which you have not done. If you are going to make the assertion that there is incorrect information contained within the website, you should have the integrity to cite the specific example.

Because this website is a record of events that have happened, there are no "unnecessary" pictures or comments on the website. If you are offended by the truth, then perhaps you need to address the problem and not be critical of those that merely keep a record of it.

I do not wish for any of my emails to you to be posted on your website

Thank you,
that little middle eastern kid

You should have thought about that before you sent the first e-mail.

--TOP--

18 February 2009

Rick Seguin wrote:

Hello,

I stumbled across your website as I was researching ways in which I could help with animal shelters in my area.

I must say it is a very negative and disturbing effort that you have put forth. I spent 20 minutes or so scanning it and didn't see any positive approach to solving any of the problems. You seem more bent on tearing things down than building things up. ...branding people as Marxists, Terrorists etc. While your attention to the issue of animal cruelty is admirable, I'm afraid you are emanating the hateful violence that you purport to despise. I feel anger and hatred oozing from the pages as I read. Have these emotions ever really solved a problem ?

I get the feeling that someone or group at this website has a personal axe to grind. It seems to have gone beyond concern for the animals and has morphed into something else very vitriolic and very personal. I'm struck by how you and others tend to wrap yourselves in patriotism and the flag at the same time you condemn your "enemies" as traitors. What in the world does this have to do with patriotism and treason ? It has to do with God's defenseless creatures and what we as humans can do to help them suffer less and live out their lives.

I hope there will be something positive forthcoming from you folks. These animals need our help badly. You seem well informed on the issues. We could use your help in finding solutions. If you're going to print this on your website I hope you'll offer the courtesy of printing it in its entirety and not attempt to twist my words.

Thanks for your time. I look forward to your reply.

Rick Seguin

The effort we have put forth is to record history. Everything on this website is factual, and yes, it is definitely negative and disturbing. That is why we felt it important that we record the facts lest they be forgotten or even argued that they never happened. We are not branding anyone as a Marxist or a Terrorist. Their actions and statements have branded them as a Marxist or a Terrorist.

You did not actually state any specific groups you seem to feel that we have slighted somehow, so it is difficult to address your concern specifically. However, we have printed the facts and while they may be distasteful, they offer a true and accurate accounting.

At no point have we tried to advance violence toward anyone. The same cannot be said for the very people with the Marxist and/or Terrorist beliefs. We have clearly shown the ideology from the people that advocate violence against others. For your convenience, we have pages of proof showing the statements made by the same people you dislike being branded as a Marxist or a Terrorist.

If you actually take a close look at the groups we have reported on the website, you will see that they are indeed the ones that are angry and oozing hate toward anyone that disagrees with their stated position.

Addressing your question, "Have these emotions ever really solved a problem?" Have any of the groups or people on this website ever solved a problem? They have committed arson, attempted murder, breaking and entering, and many other felonies. The list goes on and on with no end in sight. We notice that you did not ask that question. You seem to be critical only of this website's reporting and recording the facts along with commentary supported by the facts.

You have to understand that this website is not a website for animal welfare. It is an anti-Terrorist website. Unfortunately, many that advocate terrorism against others hold a very hardcore Marxist ideology. The actions of those that wish to see the downfall of America and its Capitalist society work at weakening America.

Take a good look at CodePINK. They have clearly sided with the very Terrorists that want to kill as many Soldiers, Marines, and Americans as possible. At no point have they supported any of the troops that are fighting against terrorism. They have a severe loathing of the military in every way.

Did you read what we wrote about PeTA? If you are an animal, PeTA is the last organization you want to catch you. Maybe you want to ignore what PeTA does, but we will not. We have printed the facts about PeTA for all to see.

We notice that you never did say that we were wrong with the facts. In fact, you actually stated what we are well informed on the issues, you just did not like the facts that we printed.

There it is. Your e-mail printed in its entirety and every point addressed politely with the intent to inform and educate just as we do with everyone that writes us.

--TOP--

31 January 2009

Dennis Halvordsson wrote:

OH im so tired of people who cant grasp the positivism rules of writing, the picture you have of Muhammed on your website isnt the one painted by the danish artist. The name of the danish artist is Lars Vilks, and the signature of your photo is KW. Plz start to check your sources better.

We hope you enjoyed our website and while we do appreciate your checking into our accuracy, we are correct. We never mentioned Lars Vilks as the creator of the cartoon in question. Kurt Westergaard is indeed the cartoonist that created the cartoon with the signature "KW". All of the information you presented to us about the Muhammad cartoon, Kurt Westergaard, and Lars Vilks is incorrect.

Just to help you with your accuracy, Lars Vilks is not Danish, he is Swedish. Lars Endel Roger Vilks (born 20 June 1946 in Helsingborg, Sweden) is a Swedish artist of Latvian descent. He earned a PhD in art history from Lund University in 1987 and worked at the Oslo National Academy of the Arts from 1988 to 1993. From 1997 to 2003 he was a professor in art theory at the Bergen National Academy of the Arts in Norway. As an art theorist, Vilks is a proponent of the institutional theory of art.

Kurt Westergaard (born July 13, 1935) is a Danish Cartoonist who created the controversial cartoon of the Muslim prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb as a turban pictured to the right. This cartoon was the most contentious of the 12 Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, which received strong and sometimes violent reactions from Muslims and others worldwide. Westergaard said that terrorism that received "spiritual ammunition" from Islam inspired him to draw the cartoon.

On February 12, 2008, the Danish Security and Intelligence Service announced the arrest of three people - two Tunisians and one Dane of Moroccan origin - alleged to have been planning the murder of Westergaard for drawing this very cartoon.

--TOP--

08 January 2009

This e-mail is not hate mail at all, but it is worth printing as it brings up an often overlooked quality of the Radical Environmental Movement.

Yechezkel wrote:

The people that send you this hate mail the question you have to ask them is what do they eat to live. If it is meat then they are also cruel to animals by eating them. If they eat only fruits, vegetables and grains then they are cruel to the poor plants that have no one to defend them because anything that grows is living. They also cannot wear anything besides plastic and metal clothing because everything else is cruel to plants and animals. Therefore, anyone who is still alive is full of crap and does not really care about cruelty to other living things on this planet.

Please print this.

Thanks, Yechezkel

It is somewhat hypocritical of these "tree huggers" and their rabid hatred of anyone that eats meat. They will cry over dead "old growth" trees and the lives of rocks, but they celebrate a bountiful harvest of other type of plant life. They have no problem with animals eating other animals but somehow when humans do it, it is morally wrong.

The following video is the essence of this hypocrisy of which we speak.

These people want everyone to use renewable resources, which trees are, and then they complain when old trees are cut down for that purpose. What should new houses, furniture, firewood, etc. come from... small, young trees?